Buying or Selling IPv4 Addresses?

Watch this video to discover how ACCELR/8, a transformative trading platform developed by industry veterans Marc Lindsey and Janine Goodman, enables organizations to buy or sell IPv4 blocks as small as /20s.

My attention was drawn recently to the article Europe Is About to Adopt Bad Net Neutrality Rules. Here's How to Fix Them by Barbara van Schewick from Stanford Law School. Much as I would like to spend my morning doing other work, I can see imminent harm that these (and many similar) proposals cause to the public. As a responsible professional and native European, I would like to summarise why it is imperative for EU regulators to ignore these siren calls (if they want to retain their legitimacy).

'Neutral' networks do not exist

The idea of 'neutrality' is not an objective and measurable phenomenon, as shown by the recent work published by Ofcom. It is an invention of the legal classes attempting to force novel distributed computing services into a familiar carriage metaphor.

'Neutrality' has an evil twin, namely 'discrimination'. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the intentional and operational semantics of broadband. Neither concept is a term of the art of performance engineering or computer science.

No packet networks have ever been 'neutral', and none ever will be. No scheduling algorithm is '(non-)discriminatory'. The assumed intentionality of random processes is false. The idea of 'defending' neutrality is thus a pure intellectual nonsense.

Regulators who attempt to legislate 'neutral' networks into existence will find themselves in collision with mathematical reality.

Disconnected from actual constraints

Networks have resource constraints. One is capacity, and another is 'schedulability'. The proposals to prevent 'class-based discrimination' fatally ignore the scheduling constraints of broadband.

Regulators who attempt to direct traffic management will find themselves sabotaging the customer experience and a sustainable cost structure. They will also be held accountable for the global QoE outcomes of their interventions at the level of local mechanisms. This won't end well.

There is no entitlement to performance

Taking this issue further, discussions around 'throttling' or 'slowing down' implicitly assume that there is some kind of entitlement to good performance from 'best effort' broadband. Yet there is nothing 'best' or 'effort' about it.

The service's performance is an emergent effect of stochastic processes. Performance is arbitrary, and potentially nondeterministic under load. Anything can happen, good or bad! That's the 'best effort' deal with the performance devil.

That means that when disappointment happens (as it must), its effects are unmanaged. So how does unpredictable and arbitrary performance help the development of the market? It doesn't.

Given this dynamic, it seems perfectly reasonable for ISPs to bias the dice to 'speed up' apps whose performance lags, and 'slow down' ones who are being over-delivered resources. Think of it as 'less arbitrary disappointment', rather than 'better effort'.

Regulators who attempt to sustain the illusion of universal and perpetual entitlement to high quality at the price of low quality are in for a rough ride.

'Specialised' services are an illusion

Every application has a performance constraint in order to be useful. Any attempt to define (and possibly restrict) the availability of predictable performance will hit barriers:

Firstly, there cannot be an objective definition of 'specialised'. It's in the eye of the beholder. All my applications are 'special'. Aren't your digital children 'special', too?

Secondly, applications are a form of speech, so you need to regulate classes of privileged speech, which hits both constitutional and human rights problems.

Thirdly, you assume that there are no legitimate 'editorial' decisions over the allocation of performance that ISPs can undertake. This is like saying to a newspaper that it cannot chose where to position its classified ads versus its news stories.

Regulators who try to create aristocratic classes of application, or insist all must be equal serfs, are dooming their population to performance misery.

'Fast lanes' already exist are are just fine

Application developers already buy CDNs to achieve higher performance at lower cost. This is seen as being a core feature of a workable Internet. Paid peering agreements with performance SLAs also exist. Non-IP telecoms services compete for users and usage with IP-based ones (e.g. ATM, MPLS, TDM).

So-called 'fast lanes' also aim for predictable performance, just at lower cost than other telecoms services. (We also need 'slow lanes' for predictable low cost, which may compete with the postal service.) The purported disaster that is promised is contradicted by decades of experience.

Indeed, the first ISP 'fast lane' was built to service the needs of the deaf for reliable sign language. Banning the ordinary development of broadband technology will mean these people are left with a simple choice: go without, or buy an expensive non-IP telecoms service to get the timing characteristics you need. Banning 'fast lanes' visibly harms users.

Regulators risk ridicule if they strongly regulate pricing of services with assured timing characteristics based on which transport protocol they are using.

The antithesis of packet networking

The ideas of 'congestion' (whether 'imminent' or not) profoundly misses the point and reality of packet networks.

The raison d'être of packet networks is to statistically share a resource at the expense of allowing (instantaneous) contention. Networks safely run in saturation are a good thing. In other words, we would ideally like to be able to have as much contention as possible, to lower costs, as long as we can schedule it to deliver good enough user experiences.

The discussions offered around 'congestion' are beyond irrelevant, they are simply meaningless. Genuinely, they fall into the category of 'not even wrong'. You don't need to rebut them, because the offered universe of discourse is so far divorced from reality.

Regulators face a simple choice: either there is a rational market pricing for quality (that developers must participate in), or there is rationing of quality. Which one do you want?

A broken theory

The underlying theory of 'net neutrality' advocates is a virtuous cycle of innovation. The more users there are, the more applications get written, which drives more users. The leap is then made to to 'neutrality'. This utopian ideal (single class of service, 'best effort', users pay all performance costs) supposedly maximises the flywheel effect. The presumptive basis is to minimise risk and cost to developers, and maximise choice for users.

This theory is flawed in five key ways:

Is assumes applications get the predictable performance they need. We can be sure that many applications don't exist today because the performance of 'best effort' is unpredictable, so by definition they aren't written and don't get traction.

It assumes that all users and developers are internalising their costs. They are not. Many applications are effectively pollution of a shared resource, and protocols are aggressively fighting for finite resources.

It assumes there is no cost of association. A flat global address space with where everything is reachable may sound attractive, but it comes with non-zero security and routing costs.

It assumes that developers are entitled to write distributed applications with no engineering costs for performance (e.g. issuing profiles to DPI vendors, marking traffic). This is delusional.

It assumed there is a mechanism for users to configure performance directly when needed. Today, that is absent.

Regulators that attempt to sustain today's mispricing of performance will find their rules incentivise misallocation of resources, open up market arbitrages, and repel capital from the telecoms industry.

Regulators must ignore 'lawgeneers'

The FCC went ahead and made rules about 'net neutrality' without getting its technical house in order first. This was done at the behest of cohorts of well-funded lobbying lawyers masquerading as performance engineers. As a result it has put at risk the FCC's credibility, since those rules are in conflict with the technical and economic reality of broadband.

The article cited here is merely an exemplar of a sizeable body of academic literature on 'net neutrality'. This literature exists in a self-referential citation bubble disconnected from actual broadband network operation. A common failing is to call for 'faster than math' packet scheduling.

This does our industry and society a disservice, and harms the credibility of the institutions whose names are attached to these works. Their authors' misguided attempts to control the definition and direction of ISP services must be resisted.

I strongly urge European regulators to ignore these campaigning 'lawgeneers'. They have no 'skin in the game', so suffer no consequences for their pronouncements based on false technical assumptions. This is a form of 'moral hazard'. At least ISPs have a stake in the long-term viability of their services.

The case for a scientific approach

There are real issue of power, fairness, justice and market transparency. There are real uncertainties over which market structures maximise social and economic benefits. There are real questions about the practicality of different traffic management and charging mechanisms.

The way forward is for regulators to establish a solid body of scientific knowledge within which the necessary debates can occur. This needs to be done by stochastics experts and computer scientists, not lawyers. The one (and only) thing that should be 'neutral' is the resulting framework in which a debate over justice and fairness is held.

In particular, broadband has performance and cost constraints. So what are they? We can then have a policy debate that sits within those constraints, just as spectrum policy respects the laws of physics and electromagnetism.

Ofcom has laudably made such a move to establish a basis of scientific fact from which to make broadband regulations. They have cleanly separated the science and policy issues. This process needs to continue and spread.

If you would like to join a movement for reality-based regulation, please do feel free to get in touch to discuss how this might be brought about.

If you are pressed for time ...

... this is for you. More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Vinton Cerf, Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet

Share your comments

Related

I've suggested that Cuba could use geostationary-orbit (GSO) satellite Internet service as a stopgap measure until they could afford to leapfrog over today's technology to next-generation infrastructure. They did not pick up on that stopgap suggestion, but how about low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite Internet service as a next-generation solution? SpaceX, OneWeb, Boeing and others are working on LEO satellite Internet projects. more

The chart here ought to be in every basic undergraduate textbook on packet networking and distributed computing. That it is absent says much about our technical maturity level as an industry. But before we look at what it means, let's go back to some basics. When you deliver a utility service like water or gas, there's a unit for metering its supply. The electricity wattage consumed by a room is the sum of the wattage of the individual appliances. more

There is an urgent need to clarify the GDPR's territorial scope. Of the many changes the GDPR will usher in this May, the expansion of EU privacy law's territorial scope is one of the most important. The GDPR provides for broad application of its provisions both within the EU and globally. But the fact that the GDPR has a broad territorial scope does not mean that every company, or all data processing activities, are subject to it. more

As discussed in previous analyses, the arrival of 5G will trigger a totally new development in telecommunications. Not just in relation to better broadband services on mobile phones - it will also generate opportunities for a range of IoT (internet of things) developments that among other projects are grouped together under smart cities (feel free to read 'digital' or 'connected cities'). more

The Cuba Internet Task Force (CITF) held their inaugural meeting last week. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs John S. Creamer will chair the CITF, and there are government representatives from the Department of State, Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Federal Communications Commission, National Telecommunications and Information Administration and Agency for International Development. Freedom House will represent NGOs and the Information Technology Industry Council will represent the IT industry. more

The Silicon Flatirons Conference on Regulating Computing and Code is taking place in Boulder. The annual conference addresses a range of issues at the intersection of technology and policy and provides an excellent look ahead to the tech policy issues on the horizon, particularly in telecommunications. I was looking forward to yesterday's panel on "The Triumph of Software and Software-Defined Networks", which had some good discussion on the ongoing problem surrounding security and privacy of the Internet of Things (IoT)... more

These days in Washington, even the most absurd proposals become the new normal. The announcement yesterday of a new U.S. State Department Cyberspace Bureau is yet another example of setting the nation up as an isolated, belligerent actor on the world stage. In some ways, the reorganization almost seems like a companion to last week's proposal to take over the nation's 5G infrastructure. Most disturbingly, it transforms U.S. diplomacy assets from multilateral cooperation to becoming the world's bilateral cyber-bully nation. more

With GDPR coming into effect this May, it is almost a forgone conclusion that WHOIS as we know it today, will change. Without knowing the full details, how can companies begin to prepare? First and foremost, ensuring that brand protection, security and compliance departments are aware that a change to WHOIS access is on the horizon is an important first step. Just knowing that the ability to uncover domain ownership information is likely to change in the future will help to relieve some of the angst that is likely to occur. more

It is interesting to observe the changes in the telecommunications environment over the last few decades. Before videotex (the predecessor of the internet) arrived in the late 1970s early 1980s, 90% of telecommunications revolved around telephone calls. And at that time telephony was still a luxury for many, as making calls were expensive. I remember that in 1972 a telephone call between London and Amsterdam cost one pound per minute. Local telephone calls were timed... more

The Caribbean suffered six major storms in 2017, including the record-breaking Category 5 hurricanes Irma and Maria. In the unprecedented destruction, the islands of Dominica and Barbuda lost all communication and telecommunications service, and eight other Caribbean countries were severely disrupted. Each hurricane season wreaks greater devastation than the last, yet decreased telecommunications competition, inadequate regulation, and high national debt burdens in the region yield ever-diminishing infrastructural investment. more

President Obama began working on Cuban rapprochement during his 2009 presidential campaign. After over five years of thought and negotiation, the Whitehouse announced a major shift in Cuba policy, which included allowing telecommunications providers "to establish the necessary mechanisms, including infrastructure, in Cuba to provide commercial telecommunications and Internet services, which will improve telecommunications between the United States and Cuba." more

This seemed to be the reaction this morning worldwide to the leaked alleged PowerPoint slides detailing the White House strategic options for a U.S. national 5G infrastructure. The gist of the slides has apparently been confirmed to Reuters by unnamed "Trump security team members." The options apparently range between creating a U.S. Ministry of 5G resembling the old world of government Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication (PTT) agencies of bygone years, and sawing off the U.S. ICT infrastructures and services from the rest of the world. more

On January 24, 2018, ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) and Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) co-hosted an event to discuss the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its implications on access to the WHOIS database. ICANN's CEO and General Counsel joined the discussion, as did stakeholders from across the ICANN community. The event was timely and well attended with over 200 participants attending in-person or virtually. more

Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "the extraterritorial operation of laws; that is, their operation upon persons, rights or jural relations, existing beyond the limits of the enacting state, but still amenable to its laws. The term is used to indicate jurisdiction exercised by a nation in other countries, by treaty..." Extraterritoriality is also the most significant emerging development today in the law shaping virtual network architectures and services that includes OTT and NFV-SDN. more

The American industry lobby (AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast) successfully pushed the regulator to get rid of net neutrality, but they are not stopping there. They can sense the opportunity under the Trump Administration to roll further back any regulations that stand in the way of maximising their profits. As all three largely enjoy geographic monopolies in their regions of operation, there is little competition driving innovation forward, so their aim is to milk the networks that they currently have in place for as long as possible. more

Promoted Post

Buying or Selling IPv4 Addresses?

Watch this video to discover how ACCELR/8, a transformative trading platform developed by industry veterans Marc Lindsey and Janine Goodman, enables organizations to buy or sell IPv4 blocks as small as /20s.

Avenue4 LLCRead4635

A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments. Serving Since 2002.